The various methods of statutory interpretation that have been developed by the courts over the years of the British Legal system are a common law concept.
1.0 Introduction
Statutory interpretation is the process the courts interpret and apply the passed Acts of Parliament. The courts must do this as when a case involves a statute, mainly because some statutes have a plain and straightforward meaning. And there usually is ambiguity and vagueness within the words of the statute and it is left to the judge for the matter to be resolved.
2.0 Some of the methods of statutory interpreation that we will reveal and discuss are the Literal Rule, Golden Rule, Mischief Rule and also anylase the Purposive Approach used by the courts of United kingdom and other countries who have adapted to the Laws of United Kingdom.
2.1 The Literal Rule
During the 18th and 19th centuries the court started to take more of a literal approach within their courts they took a strict view of the words of a statute. If the case before them was not precisely covered they were not prepared to countenance any alteration of the statutory language.
An example of this is:
“Whiteley v Chappell (1868) LR 4 QB 147.
In this case, the defendant pretended to be someone who had recently died in order to use that person’s vote. It was an offence to ‘personate any person entitled to vote.’ As dead people cannot vote, the defendant was held not to have committed an offence. The Defendant had voted using a dead person’s name.”
2.2 The Golden Rule
Some judges have suggested that a court may depart from the ordinary meaning where that would lead to absurdity. It only applies where the words are ambiguous. An interpretation that is not absurd is to be preferred to one that is.
An example of this is:
R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367

The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy under s.57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The statute states 'whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence'. Under a literal interpretation of this section the offence would be impossible to commit since civil law will not recognise a second marriage any attempt to marry in such circumstances would not be recognised as a valid marriage..
2.3 The Mischief Rule
The mischief rule is contained in Heydon's Case (1584)
Ref http://www.peterjepson.com/law/legislation_cases.htm#Heydon's Case (1584)., where it was stated that for the true interpretation of all statutes four things are to be considered: 1) What was the common law before the making of the Act. 2) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide. 3) What remedy Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the disease. 4) The true reason of the remedy and then the function of the judge is to make such construction as shall supress the mischief and advance the remedy.
An example of this is:
“Smith v Hughes [1960].
Ref http://www.peterjepson.com/law/legislation_cases.htm#Heydon's Case (1584).,
Section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 said "it shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution."
The court considered appeals by six different women who had been on a balcony or at the windows of ground floor rooms. In each case, the women were attracting men by calling to them or tapping on a window. They argued they were not guilty since they were not in the street.
The court decided they were guilty:
Lord Parker saying:
"For my part I approach the matter by considering what is the mischief aimed at by this Act. Everybody knows this was an Act to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes. Viewed in this way it can matter little whether the prostitute is standing in the street or in the doorway or on the balcony, or at a window, or whether the window is shut or open or half open."
2.4 Purposive Approach
Since Britains membership of the European Union, interpreting statutes has been done using the purposive approach as EU laws are much broader and is a modern version of the mischief approach, It is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation. Normally common law courts interpret an enactment in light of the purpose for which it was enacted.
An example of this is: “Ensign Tankers Leasing Ltd V Stokes (1992)

(Ref: http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/corporate-tax/9655-tax-avoidance-the-current-uk-approach)
This case concerned a claim for capital allowances in respect of expenditure that was incurred by a limited partnership set up to finance films. The limited partnership contributed approximately £3m and the balance of approximately £11m was financed by means of limited recourse loans. Capital allowances were claimed on £14m. The case considered what ‘incurred’ meant.
In adopting a purposive approach to the legislation the House of Lords held that the partners were only entitled to capital allowances on the money that they had actually expended and not on the full £14m. One of the key issues in Ensign was the circularity of monies.”